Research Web Cancel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true provided, the description adds real behavioral detail: it sends a cancel request to the Interactions API and cleans up local tracking state, and it implies cost-saving intent. It stops short of saying what happens if the task already finished or if the ID is unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The final sentence is slightly redundant with the purpose statement but still adds the motivation for cancelling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and a one-param cancel tool has a small surface. Minor gaps remain around error/edge behavior (already-completed tasks, invalid IDs), but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single interaction_id parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a running Deep Research task.' It's clearly scoped to Deep Research, distinguishing it from the generic job_cancel / source_ingest_cancel siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Useful for stopping a task before further provider usage' implies a when-to-use condition, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., task must be running), or named alternatives among the several cancel-type siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.